RE:RE:RE:Texas sure seems to post exactly whatFrom one standpoint what you say makes perfect sense, Misty. The share prices would be much higher today, if Teuton had "cooperated" five years ago, but from an historical standpoint, what seems to make perfect sense requires two things to occur -- two things that might not occur --successful financings and successful assays. Assume the assays would be successful. It's the financings that's the problem.
If companies have to create value, ask what kind of value would have been created, if one of the partners could not come up with its share of the costs of exploration. Go back in time, Misty. Re-visit early 2010 right after that great news announcement had been made the previous November and the January blockbuster announced our big gold find. Everyone was told that American Creek now owned 51% of Treaty Creek, that it was anxious to pay 100% of the costs earning an extra nine percent, and there wasn't a whiff that any title situation was brewing behind the scenes. Not a whiff. Well, what did American Creek do in early 2010? It sought a financing. Did it fill this financing, Misty? Was it oversubscribed? If not, don't you think it might have been even more difficult to raise much larger sums financing 100% of just one substantial drill program? Remember also, 2010 marks the beginning of the worldwide commodity slide, where no one anywhere has seemed all too anxious to invest in exploration. So if American Creek never comes up with any money for a substantial drill program at Treaty Creek, Misty, what would be our share prices today? Higher? Lower?
And what would be our share prices, if the financings were successful, but the assays were poor?